Shivaji Maruti Garadkar @ Shiva Garadkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Oct 2005APPLN/2289/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, at Bangalore (Appellate Side Criminal Jurisdiction), refused bail to the appellant convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC. The court held that independent witnesses including doctors and the Special Executive Magistrate corroborated the dying declaration, outweighing the appellant's claims regarding the eye-witness and injuries.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shivaji Maruti Garadkar @ Shiva Garadkar Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN	THE HIGH	COURT OF	JUDICATURE	AT	BOMBAY
	APPELLATE	SIDE	CRIMINAL	JU	RISDICTION
	CRIMINAL CRIMINAL	APPLICATION IN APPEAL	NO.2289 NO.365	OF OF	2005 2005
Shivaji Garadkar	Maruti	Garadkar	@ .. Appellant		Shiva
	v/s.
The State of	Maharashtra		.. Respondent
Mr.Sanjeev	P.	Kadam	for the		appellant.
Ms.P.H.Kant State.	haria, Addl. Public Pro	secutor for the

¶3

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 17th October, 2005.

¶4

P.C. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal has been admitted.

¶5

Today, we are considering the bail application.

¶6

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at great length. He took us through some parts of the evidence. He contended that P.W.2 Kamina is the only eye witness. However, she has not supported the prosecution case. He has submitted that P.W.2 Kamina is mother of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the deceased made a dying declaration before her that the accused had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. However, P.W.2 Kamina has not supported

¶7

		-2-
the	prosecution	. The learned counsel urged		that
Kamina	is	the mother of the deceased. She		would
not l	eave out	the assailant. The fact that	she	has
not	supported	the prosecution speaks volumes	and	on
that	ground	itself, the appellant should		be
released	on	bail. The learned counsel then		urged
that	the d	eceased died 40 days after the		incident
in	question.	She had only 40% burn injuries.		The
medical	evidence	says that deceased died		of
septicemia	.	Therefore, at the most a case		under
section	304	part I or II will be made out.		The
appellant	can	certainly not be convicted for		the
offence	under	section 302. The learned		counsel
further	urged	that it has come in the evidenc	e	of
the	doctor	that the deceased was not in a		proper
condition	to	make statement. The learned		counsel
further	urged	that there are discrepancies in		the
dying	declarat	ions. He, therefore, stated		that

¶8

this is a fit case where the appellant should be

¶9

released on bail.

¶10

3.	We	are not	inclined to release	the app	ellant on
bail at	this	stage.	We find that	Special	Executive
Magistrate		has	recorded the dying	declaration	of
the	decea	sed	immediately after	the	incident
occurred	viz.		on 31.10.2002.	P.W.4	Dr.Mahesh
Deshpande		has	stated that on 31.	10.2002	deceased
told	him	that	the appellant poured	kerosene	on her
and set	her	on	fire. P.W.10-A.P.I.	Mrs.Jad	hav has
stated	that	on	31.10.2002, the dece	ased told	her
that	the	appellant	poured kerosene on	her and	set

¶11

			-3-
her on	fire.	A.P.I.	Mrs. Jadhav	has recorded	the
said	dying dec	laration.	Dr.Jhala,	one of	the
doctors	who	has exa	mined the dece	ased has	stated
that	on 31.10.	2002, the	deceased told	him that	the
appellant	poured	kerosene	on her and	set her	on
fire.	The S.	E.O.	and the doctors	fall in	the
category	of	independent	witnesses. T	here is	no
reason	for them	to state	any falsehood.	It is	true
that	Kamina has	not	supported the	prosecution	case.
We	do not want	to com	ment on that.	In view of	the
dying	declaration	r	ecorded immediatel	y after	the
incident	by the	Special	Executive M	agistrate and	in
view	of the	history	given by the	deceased to	the

¶12

doctors who are independent witnesses, we are not

¶13

inclined to give bail to appellant at this stage.

¶14

4.	We	are informe	d that the	ap	pellant	was	not
released	on	bail in the	trial court	.	He	is	in
custody	for	three years	and he	is	not	keeping	good
health.	N	eedless to	say that	the	ap	pellant	can
always	make	another bail	application		on	that	ground
and	the cou	rt will tak	e into	con	sideration	the	said

¶15

fact and pass appropriate orders. Application

¶16

disposed of.

¶17

(SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶18

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Shivaji Maruti Garadkar @ Shiva Garadkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shivaji Maruti Garadkar @ Shiva Garadkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mushtaq Fakir Mohammed Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivu Chandram Loni Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Vithal Dhotre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Punjaji Jondhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhagwan Shetiba Vitkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagwan Shetiba Vitkar Vs the State of Maharashtra